Talk:Elongated square gyrobicupola

Pseudorhombicuboctahedron?
Why is it called a pseudorhombicuboctahedron? --116.14.72.74 (talk) 13:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It has the same vertex figures and on quick inspection, you might think they are the same polyhedron. Tom Ruen (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I couldn't tell the difference at first.


 * Solid versions:


 * Small_rhombicuboctahedron.png Pseudorhombicuboctahedron.png


 * Transparent versions:


 * Rhombicuboctahedron.jpg Elongated_square_gyrobicupola.png


 * Double sharp (talk) 07:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Archimedean?
The pseudorhombicuboctahedron has vertex figure 3.4.4.4 at all vertices, so shouldn't it be the fourteenth Archimedean solid? Professor M. Fiendish, Esq. 05:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not a uniform polyhedron, but if you just look at vertex figures, it is unique in this regards, only Johnson solid with a fixed verf. Tom Ruen (talk) 06:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's an explanation from George Hart. Tom Ruen (talk) 06:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Eh, what does the pseudo great rhombicuboctahedron look like? (Sorry, I don't have a VRML installed yet.) Professor M. Fiendish, Esq. 02:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's with the picture linking to WRL,, how do you describe it? Dihedral symmetry anyway. Tom Ruen (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

History and alternative names
Some history (Kepler seems to have thought it was the 14th Archimedean) and alternative names ("Miller-Ashkinuze solid" etc.) at this reference: -- AnonMoos (talk) 03:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Rotate image
The image  is an elongated square gyrobicupola but, unlike its solid version  and its graphic explanation  the octagonal prism is presented vertically (not horizontally) and the rotated square cupolae is on its side (not under the prism). Here I have proposed to rotate the image by 280º to make it look a bit more like the other two images presented in the article; that way the readers wouldn't have to twist their neck on one side to be able to compare the figure to the other two. If anybody had the code to generate the figure - the job could be done with better results. Also I think that it would be more intuitive if the rotated square cupolae was on the top of the octagonal prism, not under (?!). Thewarriltonsiegedoc (talk) 01:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, I tried rotating it. Tom Ruen (talk) 02:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)